Religion and public policy

Church, child care and state in Italy

Let sleeping clerics lie

THE city of Bologna, by reputation a stronghold of leftism, has just held a referendum on whether the municipality should continue helping with the cost of private nursery schools, mostly run by the Catholic church. In other words, voters were pondering one of the many messy ways in which church and secular authority remain intertwined in most European countries, and particularly in Italy. The result in the "consultative"—ie, non-binding—ballot allowed both sides to claim victory. There was a clear win for those who oppose funding private kindergartens (59%), but a turnout of only 29%, which enabled supporters of the current system to say that most people are happy to let things be.

The sum of money at stake (an annual subsidy of around €1m, or $1.3m) is modest, as is the number of children affected, at just over 1,700. But both camps claimed that big principles were at stake. Cardinal Angelo Scola, a Milan-based prelate who was a candidate for the papacy, has been warning that curtailing the church's role in schools could imperil "educational freedom". The secularists who gathered the necessary signatures to hold a ballot have invoked one of the founding axioms of the Italian republic. Article 33 of the constitution, as well as providing for state education at all levels, tolerates private education but "with no burden on the public purse".

Perhaps both sides were exaggerating. Marco Ventura, a professor of law and religion at the Universities of Louvain and Siena, believes Article 33 does not ban public subsidies to church schools; it merely establishes that private schools have no entitlement to funding. What fired up the referendum's organisers was not so much their dislike of parish kindergartens; it was an angry feeling that state-run nursery schools are being starved of funds, making it harder for the mothers of small children to remain in work. With its radical tradition, Bologna was proud of having better child care than most Italian cities. But with public funds for child care running short, because of euro-zone austerity, more women say they are having to choose between motherhood and a job.

The centre-left establishment, both in Bologna and further afield, favours retaining subsidies for church crèches. That is partly because Catholicism retains quite a powerful influence over Italy's progressive camp, and partly on the pragmatic ground that "if it ain't too badly broke don't fix it". Among the well-known figures who seemed persuaded by such arguments were ex-prime minister Romano Prodi (pictured), and Stefano Zamagni, a University of Bologna professor whose redistributionist ideas strongly influence Vatican thinking on global economics. The vote exposed "a huge gap between the mainstream left and the radical secular left" as Gianluca Mezzofiore, a journalist from Bologna, put it.

Between the extremes of piety and secularism, many Italians are somewhere in between, torn between affection for the Catholic church and exasperation with its failings. The pendulum has swung towards affection since the advent of a new pope, who in recent days has scored fresh points by denouncing organised crime and beatifying a priest whom the Mafia killed.

The referendum comes as a reminder that anti-clericalism is as big an Italian tradition as churchiness. It also brings home why Europe's quasi-theocratic institutions survive. Whenever unpicking an arrangement between church and state looks like more trouble than it's worth, many Europeans, regardless of their own religious beliefs, will give a sophisticated shrug of shoulders and say: "Let's just let sleeping clergy lie...."

We are fighting the same battle in the United States. Liberal Democrats do not want to allow parents to receive school vouchers because after the parent receives the voucher they may "choose" a religious school.
But Liberal Democrats don't care about cash welfare payments, even though the recipient may "choose" to give some of the welfare cash to their church.
And Liberal Democrats don't care about food stamps, even though the recipient may "choose" to use the stamp to buy a cake for their church cake bake sale.
And Liberal Democrats don't care about Section 8 vouchers, even though the recipient may "choose" to have a prayer meeting in their government paid for home.
So why? Why do the Liberal Democrats care about the school voucher but not about all the other government vouchers?
Their concern has nothing to do with seperation of church and state.
To understand their true motive, you must think about the size of government and the power of government.
Liberals are opposed to "choice" when it reduces the power of government, but Liberals support "choice" when it increases the power of government.

New mothers in Italy generally have extra benefits accorded by law - for example, many national labour contracts for certain categories of employee (let's say, secretaries) receive an extra 40 euros per month in their paycheck if they have a child.
If their job does not afford them extra monetary maternity benefits, the social security agency gives mothers residing in Italy (whether they are our citizens or that of another EU state or even non-EU citizens who are residing here legally) a cheque for 2000 Euros to help with the expenses of the baby. Paid maternity leave itself can be taken for up to one year.

I do not believe homemakers as such receive monies - but widows have the right to receive 60% of their husbands pensions after his death - plus their own standard "minimum social pension" of €500.

As an observer at polls, I would like add some elements to appreciate 29% turnout of Bologna referendum on public funds to private nursery schools:
- voting proceedings scheduled solely for one day (this is indeed unusual, in general election days in Italy run for one day and a half and last referendum in Bologna prolonged for 3 days);
- poor organization of polling stations: the circumstance that polls were not located in usual places (and moreover identified with codes not corresponding to those shown in the electoral certificate) misled voters, in several cases been obliged to "tour" several locations in order to find the competent poll. I would also like to add that some stations had been placed in areas difficult to reach by way of public means of transport and no wonder that's where the lowest turnout was achieved.
- lack of information: several voters complained not to have received the call for vote sent by the municipality of Bologna, detailing the address and code of the applicable polling station. On the other hand, the majority of the recipients neglected to bring the letter with them and basically reported to the polls unaware of where to vote. This slowed down voting proceedings and increased queues. I believe this could have been avoided simply by inserting in mayor's call the requirement for voters to bring to report to polls with such notice.
To make it short, it is my opinion that such an organization has not effectively facilitate the expression of vote, as the circumstances described above may have well driven a number of people not to make use of their rights.
Greetings from Bologna!

I am citizen of Bologna, mother of two daughters.
I Kindly ask You to correct Your article, because it contains different mistakes.

1. People who did not vote do not necessarily want to let things as they are. Simply they didn't want to'waste time' to vote for a referendum without legislative power: many citizens don't believe that expressing their opinion would mean to have it respected from actual local politicians. It very unfair to say that both fronts have winned: please consider that 400 citizens with no power and no money have promoted and winned this referendum, against a rope sponsored by private schools, formed by the Mayor (!) and his Party (PD), Church, and every political force in the town except SEL and M5S.

2. 1700 children is the total number of childern that go to private schools, not the number of childern affected.
Only 400 children are really affected, because they have applied for public school, as it is free (pardon, not free but already included in the taxes that citizens pay), and they were REFUSED because of a lack of places. Now, these 400 children are constricted to go to private schools if they want the service, even if they have to pay a feee that they cannot afford, and despite public financement to privates, they do not receive any discount.
1300 children indeed, is the number of children who CHOOSE private schools, and that even if this financement would be deleted would continue going to private schools because they choose it and they can economically afford it.

Costs: one class in the public costs euro 90.000 per year and it is formed by 26 children. How many children could we help by redistributing these 1,3 mln financement from private to public ? Many children. As it is true that this would not solve totally the problem, but it would really lend a very important hand.

3. In the article you don't write that these private schools, named "paritarie" (private capital schools that choose to work according public protocols in order to be partially financed by public money) get 1.100 euro/year of public financement per EACH CHILD (not only for children refused from public service). The fee they ask to families is the same for everyone, even for those who cannot afford it, even fot the ones refused in the public. These 1.100 euro can be definitely translated into a "fee discount" for each children, not for poor, but even for billionares families.

It is very unfair to omit this matter of exlusion, because this, and not an ideology as anticlericalism, is the real motor of the referendum.
The only ideology is maybe that people want to make a better use of public money, putting before to others, children who choose public, both for economics and pedagogics, granting them a place in the public schools. If this means to cut funds to private, then let it be, because common citizens pay lots of taxes and despite receiving back services, are having it cancelled.
Private schools have all the rights to exist, but who wants a private school must have it paid for itself, not by the community, even according to pur constitution.

3. Please do not accuse the citizens of anticlericalism. There are plenty of private schools, both catholics and seculars. Let me remember that thanks to Mrs. Gelmini (instruction ministry at Berlusconi times) Religion was made a compulsory subject even in public kindergardens, to English, Art, or Music's expenses, and the only way that we have to grow up our children seculary, is to formally extempt our children from the 'Religion hour', and integrate the lack of these three subjects by private extrascolastic courses. Isn'it shameful enough ?

By the way, Religion teachers are not paid by Vatican, but by State. We have very wide sleeves and are very tolerant with Vatican, therefore, under the light of facts, please reconsider who is really anticlerical.
Not citizens, but private capital.

Let me add in conclusion, that despite paying a lot of taxes, we are having the very well known Thatcher-Effect on social status, which is being literally destroied.

Our taxes are 3-6 yrs public-school-costs-inclusive, a service which in Bologna is traditionally very loved and appreciated from more than 60 years, and it is shameful by a public administration, to blackmail poor families by double paying a service: one time with taxes, and if you really need it, the second time with the fee.

For the high consideration in which I keep Your magazine, I do kindly ask for Your comprehention and for a correction of the article. And do apologize for my English, it is very old and dusty.

Those opposing public subsidies to private, notably church-driven, schools could hope for more in this referendum. Allegations that the Roman Catholic church enjoys a privileged tax status were revived by the recession and schools are often quoted as examples of supposedly unfair treatment.
In fact last year's EU ruling on the matter should have put paid to a lot of controversy. It said tax breaks allowed under Italy's old scheme breached EU state aid rules and provided Church-run ventures with an unfair competitive edge. Italy's technocratic government enacted a new scheme, stripping the Church of its exemption from local property taxes on real estate used for mainly commercial purposes.
But the grey area will not disappear. For hotels the "commercial" purpose should be easy to find, but what about religious services at the church within a hotel's compound?. For schools students' accommodation is barely distinguishable from purely educational services (which may enjoy other tax breaks nonetheless, like in several US districts).
Political vagaries may affect the way Italy meets the EU ruling. The previous government wanted everybody to pay the new and unpopular property tax, but if its reform ends up reopening some loopholes, anti-church groups may hope for a backlash and for a higher participation rate in similar ballots.

"Marco Ventura, a professor of law and religion at the Universities of Louvain and Siena, believes Article 33 does not ban public subsidies to church schools; it merely establishes that private schools have no entitlement to funding."

I would encourage readers here to look up the meaning of the English-language adjective "jesuitical" as in the phrase, "a jesuitical argument". Talk about stretching the interpretation of our constitution...

I would also take issue with the writer's description of Italian "apathy". It is in fact a carefully studied "apathy".
The truth is that Italians, like the Czechs, are very allergic to religious conflict/war. In private, the vast majority of the country is now anti-Vatican; but in public, anyone who speaks openly against their political shenanigans is shunned. Not coincidentally, the Church has admitted recently that its statistics on regular attendance were in need of "updating": in reality, only about 7% of the country are regular church-goers (with another less than 10% belonging to other religions). That figure does not rise above 15% on religious holidays like Christmas and Easter.
So, 75% to 80% of the country NEVER steps inside a church throughout the year.

I think Democratic concerns are more diverse than the picture you just mentioned.

In some places there are concerns that this system will become abused for personal gain. How difficult would it be to establish a fake school and convince a few uncaring parents to enroll their children.

I was homeschooled for the entirety of elementary school. I had frequent contact with students whose parents said they were homeschooled simply because they were expelled. In practice these kids were receiving no educational instruction.

As someone who has experienced homeschooling, private school, and public school, I think there are significant concerns in relation to the voucher system.

That's the whole point, hxiao87... Governments ARE encouraging working couples, while single-income marriages go unrecognised... In simple terms, poor single-income households today are taxed to subsidise rich dual income households... That's nonsense
..
We can't fudge this issue... If working couples are not penalised, single-income marriages are toast... Working couples must forfeit spousal benefits, for example
..
MilovanDjilas mentioned widows' pensions... Only homemaker spouses have any moral right to survivors' pensions... If a wife has a job in her own right, she MUST forfeit her husband's pension... That's 'double-dipping', as we say in Canada
..
You want economies?... When a husband dies, the widow gets 60% of his pension... Well... If the wife dies first, should not the husband have his pension reduced to 60%?
..
Take a pair of retired schoolteachers... The husband dies... The wife gets 60% of his pension PLUS her own pension... All she is morally entitled to is 60% of her own pension... none of his
..
The bad drives out the good... Decent life is impossible while working couples are allowed to flourish... Subsidised daycare for working couples has to be the ultimate inanity
------------------------------
BTW... What's wrong with ellipses?

Your plan is simply a tax on dual income households to subsidize single income households. No one is forcing the couple to be dual-income, either. Governments should not be encouraging people to arrange their families one way or another.

Unlike the Marco Ventura you quote, most constitutional law professors believe that the phrasing of article 33 is quite simple: it means that the state can not, and must not, fund private schools, and that is the way in which it has been interpreted for decades.

Both Prodi and Zamagni are Catholic, and I think that nobody in Italy knows who the Gianluca Mezzofiore you quote is.

So, it is little wonder that they are all in favour of supporting church schools with state funds.

How about paying mothers to stay home... some kind of homemaker allowance
..
Instead of enabling women to swing both home and career, help them to achieve good homes, if that's their druthers
..
Instead of subsidising working couples, subsidise single-income marriages
..
How much longer, dear lord